38 
JOURNAL OF HORTICULTURE AND COTTAGE GARDENER. 
C July 13, 1893. 
able for the comparatively poor show made by the exhibitors. Many of 
the sixty-four members had no Roses to cut, and some of the classes 
were not represented at all. Mr. Tate and Mr. Cuthell had it all their 
own way in the three first classes, as indeed they had last year as well. 
It is discouraging of course to the smaller exhibitors to see year by year 
this state of things, but it is a difficulty that committees seem to find it 
impossible to deal with. 
In class 1, for twenty-four Roses, Mr. Tate was easily first, and the 
following Roses won for him the National Rose Society’s gold medal. 
Xavier Olibo, Ernest Metz the best Rose in the Show ; Madame G. 
Luizet, Rosieriste Jacobs, Charles Lamb, Her Majesty, Earl of Dufferin, 
Dr. Andry, La Rosiere, The Bride, Duchess of Bedford, Lady Mary Fitz- 
william, Ulrich Brunner, Anna Ollivier, Charles Lefebvre, Mrs. J. Laing, 
Horace Vernet, Marichal Niel, Marie Baumann, Comtesse de Nadaillac, 
Beauty of Waltham, Maurice Bernardin, Francisca Kruger, and Alfred 
Colomb. Mr. Cuthell took second prize (N.R.S. silver medal), with 
Paul Neyron, Anna Ollivier, Camille Bernardin, Susanne Marie Rodo- 
canachi, Xavier Olibo, Countess of Oxford, Merveille de Lyon, F. de 
Lesseps, Marie Finger, Beauty of Waltham, Duchesse de Morny, Etienne 
Levet, Comtesse de Serenye, Duke of Edinburgh, La France, E. Y. Teas, 
Ulrich Brunner, Mrs. J. Laing, Ed. Morren, Baroness Rothschild, Mdme. 
C. Joigneaux, Marie Van Houtte, Earl of Dufferin, and Lady Mary 
Fitzwilliam, 
In Class 2, for twelve Teas, the Roses which won Mr. Tate the first 
prize (N.R.S. silver medal) were The Bride, Anna Ollivier, Marie Van 
Houtte, Hon. Ed. Gifford, Marechal Niel, Souvenir de S. A. Prince, 
Francisca Kruger, Ernest Metz, Bouquet d’Or, Princess of Wales, 
Catherine Metmet, and Sunset. Mr. Cuthell took the bronze N.R.S. 
medal (second prize) with The Bride, Anna Ollivier, Marie Van Houtte, 
Hon. Ed. Gifford, Jules Finger, Mardchal Niel, Souvenir d’un Ami, 
Caroline Kuster, Perle de Jardin, Comtesse de Nadaillac, Madame 
Berard, and Madame Lambard. 
For six triplets (class 3), Mr. Tate won first prize with Ulrich 
Brunner, Xavier Olibo, Mrs. J. Laing, M. Van Houtte, Etienne Levet, 
and Duchess of Bedford ; while Mr. Cuthell took second rank with 
Ulrich Brunner, Comtesse d’Oxford, Jules Finger, Madame Victor 
Verdier, Baroness Rothschild, and Mad. G. Luizet. Now, good as 
these rosarians undoubtedly are, it is better, if possible, to see some 
variation in the record. A. 1, maiden ; 2, cutback. B. 1, maiden ; 
2, cutback. C. 1, maiden ; 2, cutback. Perhaps the Committee will be 
able to see their way to make some alteration in future. 
For the twelves, class 4, Mrs. Perkins took first prize (N.R.S. gold 
medal), with a very nice box, consisting of Baroness Rothschild, Comtesse 
de Nadaillac, Sunset, Abel Carriere, Marechal Niel, Madame Rady, The 
Bride, Mrs, J, Laing, Souvenir de Th^rese Levet, Bouquet d’Or, Captain 
Christy, and Hon. Ed. Gifford. The Hon. D. Ryder took second prize 
with Duke of Teck, Paul Neyron, Madame Berard, Prince Camille de 
Rohan, Francois Duval, Reine du Midi, Madame M. Rady, Ferdinand 
de Lesseps, Abel Carriere, La France, Marie Baumann, and Reine Marie 
Henriette. There was no competition for the third prize, nor for class 5 
(nine Teas), nor for class 6 (four triplets). In class 7 (six of any kind), 
Mrs. Hatch took first prize, the best of her blooms being Her Majesty. 
Mrs. Poland also had a fine bloom of the same Rose in the box which 
won for her the second prize. 
For four Teas, class 8, Mrs. Hatch took first prize, and Miss D. A. 
Nesfield second prize. In the members’ open class (9) for six of the 
same kind of Rose, Mrs. Perkins won the first prize with good blooms of 
Mar6chal Niel, and Mr. Cuthell second prize with Gloire de Dijon, 
There were no competitors for the third prize. For six H.P.’s (same 
kind), Mrs. Poland with John Stuart Mill was first, and Mr. Cuthell 
with Camille Bernardin second. 
The boxes of garden Roses (11) were perhaps the chief feature of the 
Show, for there were six competitors. The first prize w’as taken by Mr. 
Tate for a very beautifully arranged box, containing Lucida, Aim^e Vibert, 
Fellenberg, Gloiie de Polyantha, Safrano, Gloire de Rosomaine, 
Moschata Nivea, Cramoisie, Anna Maria Montravel, Clothilde Soupert, 
Hom6re, Crested Moss, Mrs. Bosanquet, Common China, Red Damask, 
Gloire de Dijon, Queen of Bedders, Boule d’Or, Souvenir de Malmaison. 
Mr. Cuthell’s box, which took second prize, contained Bardon Job, 
Paul’s Single White, Verdifolia, Pissardi, White Pet, Paquerette, Celine 
Forestier, Dr. Grill, and L’Ideal. For a smaller collection of garden 
Miss D. A. Nesfield took the first, Mrs. Perkins the second, and Sir 
Benjamin Brodie an extra third prize. 
The dinner table decorations was represented by one entry only, 
which was Miss D. A. Nesfield. It was for unmarried ladies only. It 
was very well done, and consisted of a combination of centre and side 
green vases in wrought iron stands filled with Roses, Ferns, and flowers. 
The drawing-room decorations were more numerous, but not up to the 
usual mark. Miss D. A. Nesfield took first prize for a combination of 
yellow Escbscholtzia, Copper Beech, Grasses, and Ferns in a green glass 
■vase in iron stand. Mrs. Benecke took the second prize for a basket, 
somewhat unevenly but tastefully arranged with Eucharis, Honey¬ 
suckle, Maize, Passiflora, Hollyhock, Gypsophila, and Ferns. 
The buttonhole bouquets represented the old fashion (small size) and 
and the new (large size). The Judges were strong minded enough to give 
the first prize to Miss Blake for three very pretty small bouquets, and 
the second prize to Miss D. A. Nesfield for three extremely pretty but 
oversized new fashioned bouquets. 
The best Rose in the Show was a very fine bloom of Ernest Metz, 
shown by Mr. Tate.— A. B. Alexander. 
HEREFORD.— July 5th. 
The twenty-seventh anniversary of the West of England Rose Society, 
the oldest Rose Show in the kingdom, was held in the beautiful grounds 
of the Castle Green, as far as weather was concerned, under most 
favourable circumstances. A slight shower in the early morning gave 
an air of freshness, grateful both to the exhibits and exhibitors, many 
of whom we know have been disappointed and distressed this trying 
season. Last year, as many rosarians will sadly call to mind, the 
Hereford Rose Show was held—as at the National Rose Shows, Provincial 
Show at Chester two days later—in a continuous deluge of rain, which 
so interfered with the receipts that no praise too high can be given to 
the Hon. Secretary, Rev. F. R. Burnside, for his marvellous energy in 
not allowing the Exhibition to fall through, and in supplying a small, 
but as it fortunately turned out, a sufficiently attractive prize list, 
to gather together in Hereford the leading exhibitors of the- 
season. May I stop, Mr. Editor, and ask here the oft put 
question, why Rose shows are not so popular as they might be, 
and theoretically ought to be, considering the unique position and 
popularity of our national flower? Many reasons there are and have 
been ventilated, perhaps all included in the great “ indispensable” every¬ 
where—“ beer and skittles,” which freely paraphrased practically means 
“ none of your light refreshments : parachutes, tight and slack rope 
acrobatisms, &c., is what our tickets are taken for and undoubtedly 
this is the case. Have we not success at Shrewsbury, wet or fine? What 
further proof is wanted ? Still, this is an opportunity your reporter does 
not like to miss in assigning another reason why the attendance at Rose 
shows is so poor, and Rose shows, as a consequence, so short-lived. He 
ventures to ask. Could not that stupendous lever of thought, word, and 
deed—the Public Press—do more ? 
Let any of your readers, fcr instance, take up his London daily of 
July 3rd. I had almost ventured to predict that the larger the circu¬ 
lation of that paper, the smaller, the more foggy and inaccurate the 
paragraph ; and then, running his eye over the report of the National 
Rose Society’s Exhibition at the Crystal Palace, ask himself what plea¬ 
sure or profit he had derived. It might be considered exacting perhaps 
to expect a strict technical report from any other than a gardening 
newspaper, but surely a more careful and detailed account might have 
been expected ; while such gross inaccuracies as one of our leading 
champion Rose nurserymen, Mr. B. R. Cant, would, one would have 
thought of easy monosyllabic nomenclature, being advertised (for 
literally to tradesmen this is so), and this not once but twice, as “ Caul.” 
To use a slang phrase (it altogether seems so droll), really “ takes the 
cake.” I could mention in same report several similar inaccuracies, 
but “ Ex uno disce omnes." Liberavi viewn animaim. This surely is not 
the way to educate the public, or to encourage a most popular (aye, in 
spite of seeming failure) but expensive industry. 
Asking pardon for this long digression, your reporter must at once 
return to the magnificent tent, capable of holding the thousands of Rose 
boxes, which alas ! were conspicuous only by their absence. To remedy 
this deficiency, the wily Hon. Sec. (Rev. F. R. Burnside) introduced a 
new departure (one quite fashionable among prandial bipeds), in 
breaking up the usual continuity of the tables into detached groups, 
thereby filling the entire space, without interfering with or giving extra 
trouble to the Judges. 
As might have been expected, owing to the early and dry season, the 
northern exhibitors (all honour to them for so well filling the gap) 
carried off all the chief prizes in the three leading nurserymen’s classes, 
the third prize not being competed for. In Messrs. Harkness & Co.’s 
seventy-two varieties, which took first prize, there was a conspicuous 
absence of Teas and Noisettes. Their blooms were wonderfully smooth, 
well coloured, and of fair size for the season, and had carried extremely 
well. They included the following varieties of H.P.’s—Gustave Piganeau 
(grand bloom but weakly habit), Madame E. Verdier, G6n6ral Jacque¬ 
minot (fine colour and shape), Slarie Baumann, Emily Soupert, Duke of 
Fife, Duchesse de Morny, Countess of Oxford, Senateur Vaisse (splendid), 
La France, Dr. Andry, Mrs. Harkness (poor), Duke of Teck (radiant, 
as one might suppose), Marie Rady (superb), A. K. Williams, Suzanne 
Marie Rodocanachi (useful), Horace Vernet, Silver Queen, Comtesse de 
Ludre (after Mrs. C. Wood, very fine). Noisettes : Caroline Kuster, 
Charles Lefebvre, Countess of Rosebery, Reynolds Hole, Emily 
Hausburg, Jean Soupert, Madame Hausman, Mrs. John Laing (grand), 
Alfred Dumesnil, Alfred Colomb, Rosieriste Jacobs (fine), Comte de 
Blaccas (a globular too much alike Emilie Hausbirrg), Duke of Con¬ 
naught, Fisher Holmes, Pride of Waltham, Harrison Weir (grand), Charles 
Darwin, Lady Helen Stewart, Constantine Petriakoff (superb), Auguste 
Rigotard, Earl of Dufferin (grand). Black Prince, Margaret Boudet, 
Duchess of Bedford (exquisite). Queen of Queens, John Saul, May Quennel 
(fine), Elie Morrel, Dr, Sewell, Merveille de Lyon, W. F. Bennett, Le Havre 
(good), Ulrich Brunner, Frangois Michelon, Xavier Olibo, Capt. Christy, 
Dupuy Jamain, Viscountess Folkestone (grand), Madame E. Verdier, 
Heinrich Schultheis, Mons. E. Y. Teas, Due de Montpensier, Duchess of 
Albany, Gloire de Margottin (fine), Mr. George Dickson, Sir Rowland 
Hill, Magna Charta (good), Avocat Duvivier, and Marie Verdier, The 
second prize was taken by the English Fruit and Rose Company, Limited, 
(Cranstons), who had fine blooms of Duke of Wellington, Tea 
Souvenir d’Elise, and Her Majesty. The thirty-six trebles fell to 
Messrs. Mack & Sons, Yorkshire, whose varieties included H.P. Charles 
Lefebvre, Merveille de Lyon, Rosieriste Jacobs, Mrs, John Laing (fine), 
Ulrich Brunner (magnificent), S. M. Rodocanachi (superb). Pride of 
Waltham, A. K. Williams, Baroness Rothschild, Dupuy Jamain, Princess 
Beatrice, Star of Waltham, Marquise Castellane, Duke of Teck,’Marguerite 
